Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Mick wrote:
>
> > and for the record, /dev/xsvc is coming. I'm working on it personally now.
>
> BTW, examining the source for aperture, it looks very much like programs
> designed to use /dev/xsvc (like the afore-argued-about iasl) would work
> fine if /
Dan Mick wrote:
and for the record, /dev/xsvc is coming. I'm working on it personally now.
BTW, examining the source for aperture, it looks very much like programs
designed to use /dev/xsvc (like the afore-argued-about iasl) would work
fine if /dev/xsvc were a link to /dev/fbs/aperture.
I Ha
Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and for the record, /dev/xsvc is coming. I'm working on it personally now.
Good news
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED](uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: ht
Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 01:01:09AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > > No, Nevada is the engineering name for the development version of the
> > > whole Sun-Solaris.
> >
> > Then it is currently impossible to be binary compatible with it.
>
> That
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 01:01:09AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
No, Nevada is the engineering name for the development version of the
whole Sun-Solaris.
Then it is currently impossible to be binary compatible with it.
That should not be true, as concerns public
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 01:01:09AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > No, Nevada is the engineering name for the development version of the
> > whole Sun-Solaris.
>
> Then it is currently impossible to be binary compatible with it.
That should not be true, as concerns public interfaces.
What you
Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/15/05, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because these forums are surely being read by many (probably thousands)
> > of people who are far less familiar with Solaris/OpenSolaris than the
> > people who post here, I'd like to strongly caut
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > But I think we can minimize the problem by doing (at least start
> > planning) an base reference distro ASAP...
> We cannot cover the whole Sun Solaris as Sun Solaris includes things that
> may never become OpenSource.
Of
Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > But I think we can minimize the problem by doing (at least start
> > > planning) an base reference distro ASAP.
> >
> > If we like to talk about a referen
On 7/16/05, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > But I think we can minimize the problem by doing (at least start
> > > planning) an base reference distro ASAP.
> >
> > If we like to talk abou
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But I think we can minimize the problem by doing (at least start
> > planning) an base reference distro ASAP.
>
> If we like to talk about a reference distro, we first need to talk about
> the extent it sh
Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > P.S. I assume that Nevada is the name for the new version of the Solaris O/N
> > consolidation and not a name for the whole Sun-Solaris.
>
> No, Nevada is the engineering name for the developmen
Joerg Schilling wrote:
P.S. I assume that Nevada is the name for the new version of the Solaris O/N
consolidation and not a name for the whole Sun-Solaris.
Nope, it's the code name for the next release of the entire Solaris WOS,
including all the consolidations.
--
-Alan Coopersmith-
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> ...
> P.S. I assume that Nevada is the name for the new version of the Solaris O/N
> consolidation and not a name for the whole Sun-Solaris.
No, Nevada is the engineering name for the development version of the
whole Sun-Solaris.
Eric
__
Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I think we can minimize the problem by doing (at least start
> planning) an base reference distro ASAP.
If we like to talk about a reference distro, we first need to talk about
the extent it should cover.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) J
Scott Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I strongly suspect that binary compatibility is something which
> certain distributions are going to lose. In fact, so far we seem to
> be running zero from one as far as binary compability - the one and
> only non-Sun distribution (deliberately) breaks bi
16 matches
Mail list logo
